Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide bones, hides or partial carcasses One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA and one replicated, controlled study in Finland found that the provision of bones decreased the frequency of stereotypic behaviours in lions, tigers and Arctic foxes. Two replicated, before-and-after studies of felids and red foxes in the USA and Norway found that the provision of bones increased activity and manipulation time. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1902https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1902Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:01:34 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide food on a random temporal schedule Three replicated, before-and-after studies in Switzerland, Ireland and Canada, UK, Ireland, Namibia and South Africa and one replicated, controlled study in Ireland found that an unpredictable feeding schedule reduced the frequency of stereotypic pacing behaviours in tigers and cheetahs. One replicated, before-and-after controlled study in the USA found that an unpredictable feeding schedule increased territorial behaviour in coyotes but did not affect travelling or foraging. Two before-and-after studies in Switzerland and the USA found that an unpredictable feeding schedule increased behavioural diversity in red foxes and alertness in a black-footed cat. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1904https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1904Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:20:46 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Supplement meat-based diets with prebiotic plant material to facilitate digestion One replicated, before-and-after study in India found that providing Jerusalem artichoke as a supplement increased two types of gut microbiota, faecal scores and faecal moisture content in leopards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1905https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1905Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:37:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Supplement meat-based diet with vitamins or minerals No evidence was captured for the effect of supplementing meat-based diets with vitamins or minerals on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1907https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1907Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:39:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Supplement meat-based diet with amino acids One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that supplementing an animal-protein diet with taurine, increased plasma taurine levels in maned wolves. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1908https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1908Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:40:59 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Supplement meat-based diet with fatty acids No evidence was captured for the evidence of supplementing diets with fatty acids on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1909https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1909Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:42:24 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide food during natural active periods No evidence was captured for the effects of providing food during natural active periods. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1911https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1911Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:43:17 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Increase variety of food items No evidence was captured on the effect of increasing the variety of food items on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1912https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1912Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:43:54 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Use of automated feeders No evidence was captured for the effects of using automated feeders on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1913https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1913Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:44:47 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide food during visitor experiences No evidence was captured for the effects of feeding during visitor experiences on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1916https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1916Wed, 24 Jan 2018 10:48:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Scatter food around enclosure One replicated, before-and-after study in Brazil found that scattered feeding increased locomotion in maned wolves. One replicated study in Brazil found that maned wolves spent more time in the section of their enclosure with scattered food than in a section with food on a tray. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1921https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1921Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:42:29 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Present food in/on water No evidence was captured on the effects of presenting food in/on water on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1922https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1922Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:46:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Present food frozen in ice Two replicated, before-and-after studies in the USA found that when presented with food frozen in ice, abnormal or stereotypic behaviours decreased and activity levels increased in bears and felids. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that manipulation behaviours increased in lions, whereas a replicated study in the USA found that manipulation behaviours decreased in grizzly bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1923https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1923Wed, 24 Jan 2018 11:51:02 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Present food inside objects (e.g. Boomer balls) Two before-and-after studies in Germany and India found that exploratory and foraging behaviours increased and stereotypic behaviours decreased in sloth bears and spectacled bears when presented with food inside objects. One before-and-after study in the USA found that exploring/foraging behaviours decreased in a sloth bear when presented with food inside objects. One replicated study in the USA found that grizzly bears spent a similar time manipulating food in a box and freely available food. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1924https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1924Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:13:36 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide live vertebrate prey One before-and-after study in the USA found that hunting behaviour increased and sleeping decreased when a fishing cat was provided with live fish. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that there was no change in the occurrence of stereotypical behaviours in tigers when provided with live fish. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1925https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1925Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:15:15 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide live invertebrate prey, including in feeding devices One replicated study in the USA found that provision of live prey increased explorative behaviours in fennec foxes compared to other types of enrichment. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1926https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1926Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:19:57 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Provide devices to simulate live prey, including sounds, lures, pulleys and bungees Two before-and-after studies in the USA and the UK found that activity levels and behavioural diversity increased in felids when presented with a lure or pulley system. One replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that pacing behaviour decreased and walking increased in cougars, but pacing initially increased in tigers, when provided with a carcass on a bungee. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1927https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1927Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:29:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carnivores: Use food as a reward in animal training No evidence was captured for the effects of using food as a reward in animal training on captive carnivores. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1928https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1928Wed, 24 Jan 2018 12:35:13 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of carrying out surveillance of bats to prevent the spread of disease/viruses to humans to reduce human-wildlife conflict. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2005Wed, 05 Dec 2018 15:31:18 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance for diseases We found no studies that evaluated the effects of carrying out surveillance for diseases on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2857https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2857Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:14:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Grassland & shrubland Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in grassland and shrubland on reptile populations. Eight studies were in the USA, three were in Australia, two were in the UK and one was in each of New Zealand and Egypt. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (6 studies): Four of six studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA and Australia found that ungrazed and grazed areas had similar reptile species richness, combined reptile and amphibian or reptile and small mammal species richness. One study found that ungrazed sites had higher species richness than grazed sites. The other study found that fencing areas to exclude grazers had mixed effects on lizard species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (15 STUDIES) Abundance (15 studies): Seven of 14 studies (including one replicated, controlled, before-and-after study) in the USA, New Zealand, Australia, Egypt and the UK found that ceasing grazing (in one case after eradicating invasive mice3 and in one case after burning11) had mixed effects on reptile or lizard abundance. Four studies found that ungrazed areas had a higher abundance of lizards or smooth snakes than grazed areas. The other three studies found that ungrazed and grazed areas had a similar abundance of reptiles, reptiles and small mammals or Texas tortoises. One replicated, randomized, site comparison study in the USA found that areas with fencing that excluded both grazing and recreational vehicle use had more Agassiz’s desert tortoises than areas with less restrictions on grazing or vehicle use. Survival (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the USA found that areas with fencing that excluded grazing and recreational vehicle use had lower death rates of Agassiz’s desert tortoises than areas with less restrictions on grazing or vehicle use. The other study found that in areas where grazing was ceased and where grazing was rotational, survival of Texas tortoises was similar. Condition (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that in areas where grazing was ceased and where grazing was rotational, size and growth of Texas tortoises was similar. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): One site comparison study in Egypt found that in areas protected from grazing with fences, Be’er Sheva fringe-fingered lizards spent less time moving and were observed further away from the nearest vegetation compared to in areas with grazing and low-impact watermelon farming. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3498https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3498Mon, 06 Dec 2021 13:47:23 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Forest, open woodland & savanna Five studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in forest, open woodland and savanna on reptile populations. Two studies were in each of Argentina and Australia and one was in Mexico1. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (4 studies): Three of four studies (including two replicated, site-comparison studies) in Mexico, Argentina and Australia found that ungrazed and grazed areas, in one case with burning, had similar reptile species richness and diversity. The other study found that in areas where livestock grazing was stopped, combined reptile and small mammal species richness increased more than in areas with grazing. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Two of five studies (including three replicated, site comparison studies) in Mexico, Argentina and Australia found that ungrazed areas had a higher abundance of reptiles and lizards than grazed areas. Two studies found that ungrazed areas, in one case with burning, had similar overall reptile or reptile and small mammal abundance compared to grazed areas. The other study found that grazing had mixed effects on reptile abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3511https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3511Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:43:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease livestock grazing: Wetland Two studies evaluated the effects of ceasing livestock grazing in wetlands on reptile populations. One study was in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that ungrazed sites had fewer bog turtles than grazed sites. One replicated, randomized, controlled study in Australia found that ungrazed areas had similar overall reptile and amphibian abundance compared to that were grazed, burned or grazed and burned (to remove invasive non-native para grass). The study also found that unmanaged areas (no grazing or burning) had a higher abundance of one skink species than areas with grazing and/or burning. Occupancy/range (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that juvenile box turtles were present less frequently in ungrazed sites compared to grazed sites. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3512https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3512Tue, 07 Dec 2021 13:58:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Carry out surveillance of reptiles for early treatment/action to prevent spread of disease We found no studies that evaluated the effects on reptile populations of carrying out surveillance of reptiles for early treatment/action to prevent spread of disease. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3702https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3702Fri, 10 Dec 2021 19:02:11 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Cease grazing on grassland to allow early succession Twenty-six studies evaluated the effects on butterflies and moths of ceasing grazing on grassland to allow early succession. Five studies were in the UK, four were in each of Germany and the USA, three were in each of Sweden and Finland, two were in each of Spain and the Czech Republic, and one was in each of Switzerland, Europe and Israel. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Community composition (3 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the Czech Republic and Germany found that the community composition of butterflies and moths in grasslands which had been abandoned for >5 years or an unspecified length of time was similar to grasslands managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). One replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that after grazing and mowing management was abandoned, over 6 years the butterfly community became dominated by generalist species, and species with fewer generations/year. Richness/diversity (12 studies): Six of nine replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study, one paired, site comparison, and seven site comparisons) in Germany, the USA, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic found that grasslands which had been not been grazed for >5 years, or an unspecified length of time, in one case with burning, had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying, burnet or all moths to grasslands grazed by cattle, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished) or grazed with cattle and burned. One of these studies also found that grasslands abandoned for 5–15 years had a greater species richness than grasslands grazed by sheep. A further two studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for >5–20 years or many years had a lower species richness of butterflies than grazed grasslands (in one study grazing and mowing were not distinguished). The other study found that butterfly species richness was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Three replicated studies (including one randomized, controlled study and two site comparison studies) in Switzerland, Germany and the UK found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 4, 5–10 or >10 years had a higher species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and nocturnal moths than extensively grazed, recently abandoned or commercially grazed grasslands. Two of these studies also found that grassland abandoned for 4 or 5–10 years had a similar species richness of butterflies and day-flying moths and all moths to grassland lightly grazed by cattle or sheep/sheep and cattle. POPULATION RESPONSE (24 STUDIES) Abundance (24 studies): Six of 20 replicated studies (including one paired, controlled, before-and-after study, three randomized controlled studies, and 15 site comparison studies) in Germany, the USA, the UK, Switzerland, Finland, Sweden, Spain, the Czech Republic and Israel found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1-25 years had a higher abundance of Scotch argus, butterflies and day-flying moths, nocturnal moths, caterpillars, and of small insects including caterpillars, than grasslands grazed by goats, sheep and/or cattle. Two of these studies only found a difference compared to grazing at commercial/intensive, not low, densities. Four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for two weeks, 5–20 years or an undetermined time had a lower abundance of butterflies and spring webworm caterpillars than grasslands grazed by cattle or a mix of livestock (in two studies grazing and mowing were not distinguished). A further four of the studies found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 5-15 years had a similar abundance of butterflies, burnet moths, day-flying moths and meadow neb moth caterpillars to grasslands grazed by sheep, horses and cattle or a mix of livestock. A further four of the studies found that in grasslands which had been abandoned for >10 years, many years or an unspecified number of years, and in one case with burning, abundance or density was mixed depending on butterfly and moth species compared to grasslands grazed by cattle or unspecified grazers or grazed with cattle and burned. The other study found that butterfly density was higher in grasslands where grazing ceased 2–9 years ago than those abandoned >10 years ago or those currently grazed. Two replicated studies (including one controlled, before-and-after study and one site comparison study) in Spain and Germany found that grasslands which had been abandoned for 1–6 years or an unspecified time period had a higher abundance of woodland and hedgerow butterflies and burnet moths, but a lower abundance of grassland or farmland species, than grasslands managed by grazing and/or mowing (results not distinguished). Two studies also found that the large blue and silver-studded blue went extinct in some abandoned meadows. One replicated, site comparison study in Sweden found that grasslands which were ungrazed for the year had a lower abundance of clouded Apollo butterflies than lightly grazed grasslands, but a higher abundance than heavily grazed grasslands. One review in Europe reported that ceasing grazing on grassland benefitted six out of 67 butterfly species of conservation concern. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): One replicated, paired, site comparison study in Germany found that grassland which had been abandoned for >5 years had a similar occurrence of hoary bell moth caterpillars to grassland grazed by sheep. One replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that a similar proportion of grasslands which had been abandoned for one year, and grazed grasslands, contained >20 marsh fritillary caterpillar webs. One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found that grizzled skipper and painted lady occurred less frequently, but small pearl-bordered fritillary occurred more frequently, in meadows which had been abandoned for at least 1–2 years than in meadows managed by grazing or mowing (results not distinguished). Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3956Sun, 14 Aug 2022 10:36:11 +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