Collected 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 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: 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 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: Use tree nets to deter wild mammals from fruit crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using tree nets to deter mammals from fruit 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%2F2442https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2442Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:25:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lights and sound to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using lights and sound to deter predation of livestock 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): Three replicated studies (including one controlled study), in the USA, found that devices emitting sounds and lights deterred predators from predating sheep or consuming bait. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2449https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2449Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:49:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects of using scent to deter predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (3 studies): Two of three studies (including one replicated, before-and-after study), in the USA and Botswana, found that applying scent marks from unfamiliar African wild dogs and grey wolves restricted movements of these species. The other study found that applying scent marks from coyotes did not restrict their movements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2450https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2450Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:54:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using mobile phone communications to warn farmers of problematic mammals (e.g. elephants). ‘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%2F2452https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2452Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:59:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing/netting to reduce predation of fish stock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using fencing or netting to reduce predation of fish stock 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 effectsCollected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2454https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2454Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:11:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use lights and sound to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of using both lights and sound 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): Two replicated paired sites, controlled studies (one also randomized), in the USA, found that frightening devices, emitting lights and sound, did not reduce crop intrusions by white-tailed deer or food consumption by elk and mule deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2456Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:14:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use scarecrows to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using scarecrows 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%2F2459https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2459Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:24:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use loud noises to deter crop damage (e.g. banger sticks, drums, tins, iron sheets) by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of using loud noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Zimbabwe and Kenya and one each was in the UK, Namibia, and India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Five of six studies (including two controlled, one replicated and two before-and-after studies), in the USA, Namibia, Kenya and India, found that loud noises activated when an animal was in the vicinity reduced or partially reduced crop damage or crop visits by white-tailed deer, black-tailed deer (when combined with using electric shock collars) and elephants. The other study found that using loud noises (along with chili fences and chili smoke) did not reduce crop-raiding by African elephants. Three studies (including two controlled studies), in the UK and the USA, found that regularly sounding loud noises did not repel European rabbits or white-tailed deer. Two replicated studies, in Zimbabwe, found that, from among a range of deterrents, African elephants were repelled faster from crop fields when scared by firecrackers or by a combination of deterrents that included drums. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2460https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2460Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:34:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using noise aversive conditioning to deter crop damage 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): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that noise aversive conditioning reduced bait consumption by white-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2461https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2461Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:44:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using drones to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Tanzania. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones repelled African savanna elephants from crops within one minute. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2481Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:25:39 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using negative stimuli to deter consumption of livestock feed by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in the USA. KEY 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 white-tailed deer presence at cattle feeders was usually reduced by a device that produced a negative stimulus. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2486https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2486Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:03:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects of using target species distress calls or signals to deter crop damage by these species to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Two studies were in the USA and one each was in Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Two of five replicated studies (including four controlled studies), in the USA, Namibia, Australia and Sri Lanka, found that white-tailed deer and Asian elephants were deterred or repelled from areas by playing their respective distress calls. Two studies found that, in most cases, elephants and white-tailed deer were not deterred from entering or remaining at sites when distress calls were played. The fifth study found mixed results but, overall, eastern grey kangaroo foot-thumping noises did not increase numbers leaving a site. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2488https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2488Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:14:16 +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 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 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: 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: 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 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 +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