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: 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: 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 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 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 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: Install metal grids at field entrances to prevent mammals entering to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal incursions of installing metal grids at field entrances to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Both of these studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (including one controlled study), in the USA, found that deer guards (horizontal, ground-level metal grids) reduced entry into enclosures by white-tailed deer whilst the other found that they did not prevent crossings by mule deer or elk. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2440https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2440Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:19:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Deter predation of livestock by using shock/electronic dog-training collars to reduce human-wildlife conflict Five studies evaluated the effects of using shock/electronic dog-training collars to deter predation of livestock to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All five studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (5 studies): Three of four replicated studies (including two controlled studies), in the USA, found that electric shock collars reduced livestock predation or bait consumption by wolves, whilst one found that they did not reduce wolf bait consumption. One replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock collars reduced the frequency of attacks by captive coyotes on lambs. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2446Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:37:37 +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 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: Provide diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Six studies evaluated the effects of providing diversionary feeding to reduce crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Canada and one was in each of France, Spain and Austria. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Three of six studies (including four controlled and one before-and-after study) in Canada, France, Spain and Austria found that diversionary feeding reduced damage by red squirrels to pine trees and European rabbits to grape vines, and resulted in fewer red deer using vulnerable forest stands. Two studies found that diversionary feeding did not reduce damage by voles to apple trees or wild boar to grape vines. One study found mixed results on damage by voles to crabapple trees depending on the food provided. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2457https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2457Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:18:00 +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: Translocate crop raiders away from crops (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects on mammals of translocating crop-raiding animals away from crops to reduce human-wildlife conflict. One study was in Kenya and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in Kenya found that translocated crop-raiding African elephants had a lower survival rate after release than did non-translocated elephants at the same site. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A study in the USA found that most American black bears translocated from sites of crop damage were not subsequently recaptured at sites of crop damage. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2485https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2485Thu, 04 Jun 2020 12:51:08 +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 bees to deter crop damage by mammals (e.g. elephants) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Three studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using bees to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. All three studies were in Kenya. 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 Kenya, found that beehive fences reduced crop raiding by African elephants. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2489https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2489Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:04:06 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chili to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Seven studies evaluated the effects on elephants of using chili to deter crop damage to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Four studies were in Zimbabwe, two were in Kenya and one was in India. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (7 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (7 studies): Five of seven studies (including four replicated and two before-and-after studies), in Zimbabwe, Kenya and India, found that chill-based deterrents (chili-spray, chili smoke, chili fences and chili extract in a projectile, in some cases along with other deterrents) repelled elephants at least initially, whist two studies found that chili smoke (and in one case chili fences) did not reduce crop raiding. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2492Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:22:19 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use 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 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: Drive wild animals away using domestic animals of the same species to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using domestic animals to drive away wild mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in India. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): One study in India found that using domestic elephants to drive wild Asian elephants away from villages did not reduce the probability of elephants damaging crops. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2513Fri, 05 Jun 2020 09:48:03 +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