Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Pay farmers to compensate for losses due to predators/wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers compensation for losses due to predators or wild herbivores to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Kenya and one each was in Italy and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies, in Italy and Sweden, found that compensating livestock owners for losses to predators led to increasing populations of wolves and wolverines. Survival (3 studies): Three before-and-after studies (including two replicated studies), in Kenya, found that when pastoralists were compensated for livestock killings by predators, fewer lions were killed. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2414https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2414Fri, 29 May 2020 15:48:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing non-electric fencing to exclude predators or herbivores and reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Germany, the UK, Spain, China, Tanzania and Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Four replicated studies (including three before-and-after studies), in USA, China, Tanzania and Kenya, found that non-electric fencing reduced livestock predation by coyotes, Tibetan brown bears, and a range of mammalian predators. A replicated, controlled study in USA found that a high woven wire fence with small mesh, an overhang and an apron (to deter burrowing) was the most effective design at deterring crossings by coyotes. A replicated, controlled study in Germany found that fencing with phosphorescent tape was more effective than fencing with normal yellow tape for deterring red deer and roe deer, but had no effect on crossings by wild boar or brown hare. Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after, site comparison and one controlled study) in the UK and Spain found that fences reduced European rabbit numbers on or damage to crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2415Mon, 01 Jun 2020 08:22:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Burn at specific time of year Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of burning at a specific time of year. One study was in Australia, and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that carrying out prescribed burns in autumn did not increase small mammal abundances or biomass relative to burning in summer. Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study in Australia found that in forest burned early in the dry season, northern brown bandicoot survival rate declined less than in forests burned late in the dry season. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2416Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:39:13 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide shelter structures after fire We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing shelter structures after fire. ‘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%2F2418https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2418Mon, 01 Jun 2020 11:03:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of excluding wild mammals using ditches, moats, walls or other barricades to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Cameroon and Benin and one was in Cameroon. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study and one site comparison), in Cameroon and Benin and in Cameroon, found that fewer livestock were predated when they were kept in enclosures, especially when these were reinforced. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2420Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:39:43 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using flags to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Italy and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three studies (including two before-and-after studies and a controlled study), in Italy, Canada and the USA, found that flags hanging from fence lines (fladry) deterred crossings by wolves but not by coyotes. A further replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric fences with fladry were not crossed by wolves. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fladry did not reduce total deer carcass consumption by a range of carnivores. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2421https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2421Mon, 01 Jun 2020 13:54:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of using campaigns and public information to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in the USA and one was in Lao People's Democratic Republic. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): A randomized, replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that displaying education signs did not reduce the percentage of garbage containers that were accessible to black bears. A controlled, before-and-after study in Lao People's Democratic Republic found that a social marketing campaign promoting a telephone hotline increased reporting of illegal hunting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2422https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2422Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:02:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats Two studies evaluated the effects of providing education programmes to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. One study was in South Africa and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, increased leopard density. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in South Africa found that educating ranchers on ways of reducing livestock losses, along with stricter hunting policies, reduced leopard mortalities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that visiting households to educate about the danger of garbage to black bears did not increase use of wildlife-resistant dumpsters. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2423https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2423Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:28:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of providing science-based films, radio programmes, or books about mammals to improve behaviour towards mammals and reduce threats. ‘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%2F2424https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2424Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:42:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Train and support local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals One study evaluated the effects of training and supporting local staff to help reduce persecution of mammals. This study was in Kenya. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in Kenya found that employing local tribesmen to dissuade pastoralists from killing lions and to assist with livestock protection measures, alongside compensating for livestock killed by lions, reduced lion killings by pastoralists. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2425https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2425Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:45:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Publish data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts One study evaluated the effects on poaching incidents of publishing data on ranger performance to motivate increased anti-poacher efforts. This study was in Ghana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that when data were publishing on staff performance, poaching incidents decreased on these sites and on sites from which performance data were not published. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Ghana found that publishing data on staff performance lead to an increase in anti-poaching patrols. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2426Mon, 01 Jun 2020 14:50:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use visual deterrents (e.g. scarecrows) to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using visual deterrents, such as scarecrows, to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A study in Kenya recorded more livestock predation at bomas with scarecrows than those without scarecrows whereas a replicated, controlled study in Mexico found that a combination of visual and sound deterrents reduced livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2427https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2427Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:13:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use pheromones to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using pheromones to deter predation of livestock 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%2F2428https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2428Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:34:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict Nine studies evaluated the effects of using taste-aversion to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to deter human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Canada and one was at an unnamed location. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (9 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (9 studies): Three of seven replicated studies (including three controlled studies), in the USA, Canada and at an unnamed location, found that coyotes killed fewer sheep, rabbits or turkeys after taste-aversion treatment. The other four studies found that taste-aversion treatment did not reduce killing by coyotes of chickens, sheep or rabbits. A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that taste-aversion treatment reduced egg predation by mammalian predators whilst a replicated, controlled, paired sites study in the USA found no such effect. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2429https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2429Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:38:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate mammals to reduce overpopulation Three studies evaluated the effects of translocating mammals to reduce overpopulation. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that adult elk numbers approximately halved after the translocation of wolves to the reserve. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved after the translocation of wolves to the reserve. Survival (2 studies): A study in Australia found that koalas translocated to reduce overpopulation had lower survival than individuals in the source population. A study in the USA found that following translocation to reduce over-abundance, white-tailed deer had lower survival rates compared to non-translocated deer at the recipient site. Occupancy/range (1 study): A study in the USA found that following translocation to reduce over-abundance at the source site, white-tailed deer had similar home range sizes compared to non-translocated deer at the recipient site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2430https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2430Mon, 01 Jun 2020 15:46:24 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate predators for ecosystem restoration Two studies evaluated the effects of translocating predators for ecosystem restoration. These studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A before-and-after study in the USA found that following reintroduction of wolves, populations of beavers and bison increased. A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, adult elk numbers approximately halved. Reproductive success (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that after the translocation of wolves to the reserve, elk calf:cow ratios approximately halved. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2431https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2431Mon, 01 Jun 2020 16:12:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Dispose of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of disposing of livestock carcasses to deter predation of livestock by mammals 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): One site comparison study in the USA found that burying or removing sheep carcasses reduced predation on livestock by coyotes, but burning carcasses did not alter livestock predation rates. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2432https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2432Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:05:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use guardian animals (e.g. dogs, llamas, donkeys) bonded to livestock to deter predators to reduce human-wildlife conflict Twelve studies evaluated the effects of using guardian animals (e.g. dogs, llamas, donkeys) bonded to livestock to deter mammals from predating these livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA, two were in Kenya and one each was in Solvakia, Argentina, Australia, Cameroon, South Africa, and Namibia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (12 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (12 studies): Four of seven studies, (including four site comparison studies), in the USA, Kenya, Solvakia, Australia and Cameroon, found that guardian animals reduced attacks on livestock by predators. The other three studies reported mixed results with reductions in attacks on some but not all age groups or livestock species and reductions for nomadic but not resident pastoralists. Two studies, (including one site comparison study and one before-and-after study), in Argentina and Namibia, found that using dogs to guard livestock reduced the killing of predators by farmers but the number of black-backed jackals killed by farmers and dogs combined increased. A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that fewer sheep guarded by llamas were predated by carnivores in one of two summers whilst a replicated, before-and-after study in South Africa found that using dogs or alpacas to guard livestock reduced attacks by predators. A randomized, replicated, controlled study in USA found that dogs bonded with livestock reduced contact between white-tailed deer and domestic cattle. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2433https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2433Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:41:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use holding pens at release site prior to release of translocated mammals Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of using holding pens at the release site prior to release of translocated mammals. Ten studies were in the USA, seven were in South Africa, four were in the UK, three studies were in France, two studies were in each of Canada, Australia and Spain and one was in each of Kenya, Zimbabwe, Italy, Ireland and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (31 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four studies (two replicated, one before-and-after study) in South Africa, Canada, France and Spain found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), populations of roe deer, European rabbits and lions increased in size. The other study found that elk numbers increased at two of four sites. Reproductive success (10 studies): A replicated study in the USA found that translocated gray wolves had similar breeding success in the first two years after release when adult family groups were released together from holding pens or when young adults were released directly into the wild. Seven of nine studies (including two replicated and one controlled study) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, Italy, Ireland, Australia and the UK found that following release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations of roan, California ground squirrels, black-tailed prairie dogs, lions, four of four mammal populations, most female red squirrels and some pine martens reproduced successfully. Two studies found that one of two groups of Cape buffalo and one pair out of 18 Eurasian badgers reproduced. Survival (26 studies): Two of seven studies (five controlled, three replicated studies) in Canada, the USA, France, the UK found that releasing animals from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with associated actions) resulted in higher survival for water voles and female European rabbits compared to those released directly into the wild. Four studies found that translocated swift foxes, gray wolves, Eurasian lynx and Gunnison's prairie dogs released from holding pens had similar survival rates to those released directly into the wild. One study found that translocated American martens released from holding pens had lower survival than those released directly into the wild. Two of four studies (three controlled) in South Africa, Spain, and the USA found that translocated African wild dogs and European rabbits that spent longer in holding pens at release sites had a higher survival rate after release. One study found mixed effects for swift foxes and one found no effect of time in holding pens for San Joaquin kit foxes. Eleven studies (one replicated) in Kenya, South Africa, the USA, France, Italy, Ireland, India, Australia and the UK found that after release from holding pens at release sites (in some cases with other associated actions), translocated populations or individuals survived between one month and six years, and four of four mammal populations survived. Two studies in the UK and South Africa found that no released red squirrels or rock hyraxes survived over five months or 18 days respectively. One of two controlled studies (one replicated, one before-and-after) in South Africa and the USA found that following release from holding pens, survival of translocated lions was higher than that of resident animals, whilst that of translocated San Joaquin kit foxes was lower than that of resident animals. A study in Australia found that translocated bridled nailtail wallabies kept in holding pens prior to release into areas where predators had been controlled had similar annual survival to that of captive-bred animals. Condition (1 study): A controlled study in the UK found that translocated common dormice held in pens before release gained weight after release whereas those released directly lost weight. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in the USA and Canada found that following release from holding pens, fewer translocated sea otters and gray wolves returned to the capture site compared to those released immediately after translocation, and elk remained at all release sites. Two studies in Zimbabwe and South Africa found that following release from holding pens, translocated lions formed new prides. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2434Tue, 02 Jun 2020 08:44:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA and Mexico, found that loud noises at least temporarily deterred sheep predation or food consumption by coyotes and (combined with visual deterrents) deterred livestock predation by large predators. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2435https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2435Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:12:23 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating predators away from livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in the USA two were in Botswana, one each was in Canada, Zimbabwe and Namibia, one was in Venezuela and Brazil and one covered multiple locations in North and Central America and Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Reproductive success (2 studies): Two studies, in Zimbabwe and Namibia, found that predators translocated away from livestock bred in the wild after release. Survival (8 studies): Four of eight studies (including three replicated studies and a systematic review), in the USA, Canada, Zimbabwe, South America, Botswana and Namibia, found that translocating predators reduced their survival or that most did not survive more than 6–12 months after release. Three studies found that translocated predators had similar survival to that of established animals or persisted in the wild and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Four of six studies (including a review and a systematic review), in the USA, South America and in North and Central America and Africa, found that some translocated predators continued to predate livestock or returned to their capture sites. One study found that translocated predators were not subsequently involved in livestock predation and one study could not determine the effect of translocation on livestock predation. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2436https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2436Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:18:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Reproductive success (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that diversionary feeding of predators did not increase overall nest success rates for ducks. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two studies (one controlled, one before-and-after study) in the USA and Canada found that diversionary feeding reduced striped skunk predation on duck nests. The other study found that diversionary feeding of grizzly bears did not reduce predation on livestock. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2437https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2437Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:36:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Keep livestock in enclosures to reduce predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of keeping livestock in enclosures to reduce predation by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Portugal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Portugal found fewer wolf attacks on cattle on farms where cattle were confined for at least some of the time compared to those with free-ranging cattle. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2438https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2438Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:42:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Japan, three were in the USA, two were in the UK and one each was in Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 studies) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Nine of 11 studies (including three before-and-after studies and three controlled studies), in the USA, the UK, Japan, Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau, found that electric fences deterred crossings by mammals, ranging in size from European rabbits to elephants. Two studies had mixed results, with some fence designs deterring elephants and black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:46:58 +0100