Conservation Evidence: Evidence Data

Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Translocate problem mammals away from residential areas (e.g. habituated bears) to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of translocating problem mammals (such as bears) away from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Canada, one was Russia, one was in India and one was in Romania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Survival (6 studies): A controlled study in the USA found that grizzly bears translocated away from conflict situations had lower survival rates than did non-translocated bears. A replicated study study in the USA found that fewer than half of black bears translocated from conflict situations survived after one year. Two of three studies (two controlled), in the USA, found that after translocation away from urban sites, white-tailed deer survival was lower than that of non-translocated deer. The third study found that short-term survival was lower but long-term survival was higher than that of non-translocated deer. A study in Russia found that most Amur tigers translocated after attacking dogs or people did not survive for a year after release. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (6 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (6 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and two replicated studies), in the USA and Canada, of brown/grizzly or black bears translocated away from residential areas or human-related facilities, found that at least some returned to their original capture location and/or continued to cause nuisance. In two of the studies, most returned to their capture area and one black bear returned six times following translocation. A before-and-after study in India found that leopards translocated away from human-dominated areas, attacked more humans and livestock than before-translocation. A controlled study in Romania found that translocated brown bears occurred less frequently inside high potential conflict areas than outside, the opposite to bears that had not been translocated. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2336https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2336Thu, 21 May 2020 14:09:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Scare or otherwise deter mammals from human-occupied areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict Ten studies evaluated the effects of scaring or otherwise deterring mammals from residential areas to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA, three were in Canada and one was in Tanzania. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (10 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (10 studies): Two of four studies (including one randomized and controlled study) in the USA, found that a range of noise and pain deterrents did not prevent black bears from returning to urban areas or other human-occupied sites. The other two studies found that such actions did deter them from seeking food at human-occupied sites. Two of three studies, in the USA and Canada, found that chasing nuisance black bears with dogs and chasing elk with people or dogs caused them to stay away longer or remain further from human occupied areas. The other study found that attempts to scare coyotes did not cause them to avoid human occupied areas. A before-and-after study in Canada found that an electric fence prevented polar bear entry to a compound. A study in Canada found that chemical and acoustic repellents did not deter polar bears from baits in most cases. A replicated study in Tanzania found that drones caused African savanna elephants to quickly leave residential areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2347Fri, 22 May 2020 14:14:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Rehabilitate injured, sick or weak mammals Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of rehabilitating injured, sick or weak mammals. Four studies were in the UK, three were in Spain, two were in Argentina and one each was in Uganda, Australia, the USA and Brazil. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (12 STUDIES) Survival (11 studies): Five studies, in the UK and Spain, found that varying proportions of European hedgehogs released after being rehabilitated in captivity survived during post-release monitoring periods, which ranged from two weeks to 136 days. Five studies, in Australia, Spain, the USA and Brazil, found that four koalas, an Iberian lynx, a gray wolf, a puma and two brown bears released following rehabilitation in captivity survived for varying durations during monitoring periods, which ranged in length from three months to up to seven years. A study in Argentina found that over half of released rehabilitated and captive-reared giant anteaters survived for at least six months. Condition (2 studies): A study in Uganda found that a snare wound in a white rhinoceros healed after treatment and rehabilitation. A study in the UK found that two of three rehabilitated European hedgehogs lost 12-36% of their body weight after release into the wild. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A controlled study in Argentina found that released wild-born rehabilitated giant anteaters were more nocturnal in their activity patterns than captive-bred individuals.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2352https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2352Tue, 26 May 2020 08:46:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Create uncultivated margins around intensive arable or pasture fields Nine studies evaluated the effect of creating uncultivated margins around intensive arable, cropped grass or pasture fields on mammals. Six studies were in the UK, two were in Switzerland and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): One replicated, controlled study in the UK found more small mammal species in uncultivated field margins than in blocks of set-aside. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): One replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found more small mammals in uncultivated and unmown field margins than in frequently mown margins. Three of seven replicated, site comparison studies (one randomized), in the UK and Switzerland, found that uncultivated field margins had higher numbers of small mammals, bank voles and brown hares relative to crops (including grassland) and set-aside. The other four studies reported mixed or no effects on bank voles, wood mice and common shrews, small mammals and brown hares. One site comparison study in the UK found that brown hares used grassy field margins more than expected based on their availability. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2365Tue, 26 May 2020 15:55:26 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans Eight studies evaluated the effects of using non-lethal methods to deter carnivores from attacking humans. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Australia, one was in the USA and Canada, one was in Austria and one was in Bangladesh. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Bangladesh found that when domestic dogs accompanied people to give advance warning of tiger presence, fewer tigers were killed by people. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (8 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (8 studies): Two studies, in the USA and Canada, found that pepper spray caused all or most American black bears and grizzly bears to flee or cease aggressive behaviour. One of these studies also showed that tear gas repelled half of American black bears. Two studies in the USA and Austria found that grizzly/brown bears were repelled by rubber bullets or by a range of deterrents including rubber bullets, chasing, shouting and throwing items. A study in the USA found that hikers wearing bear bells were less likely to be approached or charged by grizzly bears than were hikers without bells. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that ultrasonic sound deterrent units did not affect feeding location choices of dingoes. A study in Bangladesh found that domestic dogs accompanying people gave advance warning of tiger presence, enabling people to take precautionary actions. A study in Australia found that a motorised water pistol caused most dingoes to change direction or speed or move ≥5 m away, but sounding a horn did not.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2385Wed, 27 May 2020 15:41:28 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude livestock from semi-natural habitat (including woodland) Nine studies evaluated the effects of excluding livestock from semi-natural habitat on mammals. Six studies were in the USA, two were in Spain and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two replicated, site comparison studies in the USA found more small mammal species on areas from which livestock were excluded. POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Abundance (9 studies): Four out of eight studies (including four site comparisons and four controlled studies), in the USA and Spain, found that excluding grazing livestock led to higher abundances of mule deer, small mammals and, when combined with provision of water, of European rabbits. One study found higher densities of some but not all small mammals species when livestock were excluded and the other three studies found that grazing exclusion did not lead to higher abundances of black-tailed hares, California ground squirrel burrows or of five small mammal species. A site comparison study in Australia found more small mammals where cattle were excluded compared to high intensity cattle-grazing but not compared to medium or low cattle-grazing intensities. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2407Thu, 28 May 2020 13:13:42 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Reduce intensity of grazing by domestic livestock Thirteen studies evaluated the effects on mammals of reducing the intensity of grazing by domestic livestock. Six studies were in the USA, six were in Europe and one was in China. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (3 studies): Two of three site comparison or controlled studies, in the USA and Norway, found that reduced livestock grazing intensity was associated with increased species richness of small mammals whilst one study did not find an increase in species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (13 studies): Six of nine site comparison or controlled studies (including seven replicated studies), in the USA, Denmark, the UK, China, Netherlands and Norway, found that reductions in livestock grazing intensity were associated with increases in abundances (or proxies of abundances) of small mammals, whilst two studies showed no significant impact of reducing grazing intensity and one study showed mixed results for different species. Two replicated studies (including one controlled and one site comparison study), in the UK and in a range of European countries, found that reducing grazing intensity did not increase numbers of Irish hares or European hares. A controlled, before-and-after study, in the USA found that exclusion of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of elk and mule deer. A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that an absence of cattle grazing was associated with higher numbers of North American beavers. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2408https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2408Fri, 29 May 2020 08:14:23 +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: 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: 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: 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 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hold translocated mammals in captivity before release Fifteen studies evaluated the effects of holding translocated mammals in captivity before release. Four studies were in the USA, two were in Australia and one was in each of India, Canada, Switzerland, Croatia and Slovenia, the USA and Canada, the UK, France, Spain and South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (13 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (one replicated, before-and-after study) in Croatia and Slovenia and the USA found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, Eurasian lynx established an increasing population and Allegheny woodrat numbers in four of six sites increased over the first two years. Reproductive success (4 studies): Four studies in Croatia and Slovenia, Spain, the USA and Canada and Australia found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, Eurasian lynx established a breeding population, and swift foxes, European otters and red-tailed phascogales reproduced. Survival (10 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the UK and USA found that being held for longer in captivity before release increased survival rates of translocated European hedgehogs and, along with release in spring increased the survival rate of translocated Canada lynx in the first year. Four of six studies in India, the USA and Canada, the USA, France, South Africa and Australia found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, most swift foxes and greater Indian rhinoceroses survived for at least 12-20 months, 48% of Eurasian lynx survived for 2–11 years and red-tailed phascogales survived for at least six years. The other two studies found that most kangaroo rats and all rock hyraxes died within 5-87 days. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that translocated swift foxes that had been held in captivity prior to release had higher post-release survival rates than did released captive-bred animals. Condition (3 studies): A randomised, controlled study in Australia found that holding translocated eastern bettongs in captivity before release did not increase their body mass after release compared to animals released directly into the wild. A controlled study the UK found that being held for longer in captivity before release, reduced weight loss after release in translocated European hedgehogs. A study in Spain found that offspring of translocated European otters that were held in captivity before release, had similar genetic diversity to donor populations. Occupancy/range (2 studies): A study in the USA found that most translocated and captive-bred mountain lions that had been held in captivity prior to release established home ranges in the release area. A study in Croatia and Slovenia and review in Switzerland found that following translocation, with time in captivity prior to release, the range of Eurasian lynx increased over time. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2458https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2458Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:23:58 +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: Restore former mining sites Twelve studies evaluated the effects of restoring former mining sites on mammals. Eleven studies were in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Species richness (8 studies): A review in Australia found that seven of 11 studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had lower mammal species richness compared to unmined areas. Four of five replicated, site comparison studies, in Australia, found that mammal species richness was similar in restored mine areas compared to unmined areas or higher in restored areas (but similar when considering only native species). One study found that species richness was lower in restored compared to in unmined areas. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal species richness. A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that restored mine areas were recolonized by a range of mammal species within 10 years. POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): A review of rehabilitated mine sites in Australia found that only two of eight studies indicated that rehabilitated areas had equal or higher mammal densities compared to those in unmined areas. One of three replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Australia, found that small mammal density was similar on restored mines compared to on unmined land. One study found that for three of four species (including all three native species studied) abundance was lower in restored compared to unmined sites and one study found mixed results, including that abundances of two out of three focal native species were lower in restored compared to unmined sites. A replicated, controlled study in Australia found that thinning trees and burning vegetation as part of mine restoration did not increase small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study in Australia found that most restored former mine areas were not used by koalas while another replicated site comparison study in Australia found quokka activity to be similar in revegetated mined sites compared to in unmined forest. OTHER (1 STUDY) Genetic diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that in forest on restored mine areas, genetic diversity of yellow-footed antechinus was similar to that in unmined forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2490Thu, 04 Jun 2020 14:08:11 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using fencing to exclude predators or other problematic species. Four studies were in Australia, four were in the USA and two were in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A site comparison study in Australia found that fencing which excluded feral cats, foxes and rabbits increased small mammal species richness. POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Two of three studies (including two replicated, controlled studies), in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that abundances of European rabbits and small mammals were higher within areas fenced to exclude predators or other problematic species, compared to in unfenced areas. The third study found that hispid cotton rat abundance was not higher with predator fencing. A replicated, controlled study in Spain found that translocated European rabbit abundance was higher in fenced areas that excluded both terrestrial carnivores and raptors than in areas only accessible to raptors. Reproductive success (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in USA found that predator exclosures increased the number of white-tailed deer fawns relative to the number of adult females. Survival (7 studies): Four of six studies (including four replicated, controlled studies) in Spain, Australia and the USA, found that fencing to exclude predators did not increase survival of translocated European rabbits, hispid cotton rats, southern flying squirrels or western barred bandicoots. The other two studies found that persistence of populations of eastern barred bandicoots and long-haired rats was greater inside than outside fences. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that electric fencing reduced coyote incursions into sites frequented by black-footed ferrets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2497Thu, 04 Jun 2020 15:36:46 +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: Release captive-bred mammals into fenced areas Fourteen studies evaluated the effects of releasing captive-bred mammals into fenced areas. Nine studies were in Australia and one each was in Jordan, South Africa, the USA, Saudi Arabia and Senegal. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (14 STUDIES) Abundance (5 studies): Four studies (one replicated) and a review in Australia, Jordan and Senegal found that after releasing captive-bred animals into fenced areas, a population of burrowing bettongs increased, a population of Arabian oryx increased six-fold in 12 years, a population of dorcas gazelle almost doubled over four years, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot initially increased and abundance of eastern barred bandicoots increased. Reproductive success (6 studies): Four studies and a review in South Africa, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Senegal found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), African wild dogs, three populations of eastern barred bandicoot, dorcas gazelle and most female black-footed rock-wallabies reproduced, and Arabian gazelles started breeding in the year following the first releases. A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one released into a predator-reduced enclosure reproduced, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not survive to reproduce. Survival (10 studies): A study in Australia found that four of five mammal populations released into a predator-free enclosure and one population released into a predator-reduced enclosure survived, whereas two populations released into an unfenced area with ongoing predator management did not. Six studies (one controlled before-and-after study and two replicated studies) in Australia and the USA found that following release of captive-bred animals into fenced areas (in some cases with other associated management), a burrowing bettong population, three eastern barred bandicoot populations and over half of black-footed rock-wallabies survived between one and eight years, most captive-bred hare-wallabies survived at least two months, at least half of black-footed ferrets survived more than two weeks, and bandicoots survived at five of seven sites up to three years after the last release. One study in Australia found that following release into fenced areas, a captive-bred population of red-tailed phascogales survived for less than a year. A study in South Africa found that captive-bred African wild dogs released into fenced reserves in family groups had high survival rates. A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release survival compared to bandicoots released directly from captivity. Condition (1 study): A randomized, controlled study in Australia found that captive-bred eastern barred bandicoots released into a fenced reserve after time in holding pens had similar post-release body weight compared to those released directly from captivity. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2521https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2521Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:55:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install rope bridges between canopies Ten studies evaluated the effects on mammals of install rope bridges between canopies. Eight studies were in Australia, one was in Brazil and one in Peru. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A study in Australia found that arboreal marsupials using rope bridges did not suffer high predation rates when doing so. BEHAVIOUR (9 STUDIES) Use (9 studies): Nine studies (including three replicated studies and a site comparison), in Australia, Brazil and Peru found that rope bridges were used by a range of mammals. Seven of these studies found between three and 25 species using rope bridges, one found that that they were used by squirrel gliders and one that they were used by mountain brushtail possums and common ringtail possums but not by koalas and squirrel gliders. One of the studies found that crossing rates were higher over the canopy bridges than at ground level. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2556Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:50:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install barrier fencing along roads Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing barrier fencing along roads. Eight studies were in the USA, one each was in Canada, Germany and Brazil and one spanned the USA, Canada and Sweden. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (9 STUDIES) Survival (9 studies): Three controlled studies, in the USA, Germany and Brazil, found that roadside fencing or equivalent barrier systems reduced the numbers of mammals, including wildcats and coypu, killed by vehicles on roads. Two before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that roadside fencing with one-way gates to allow escape from the road, reduced the number of collisions between vehicles and deer. A study in the USA found that a 2.7-m-high fence did not reduce road-kills of white-tailed deer compared to a 2.2-m-high fence. A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that barrier fencing with designated crossing points did not significantly reduce road deaths of mule deer. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences, (along with an underpass beneath one highway), reduced moose-vehicle collisions. A review of fencing studies from USA, Canada and Sweden, found that longer fencing along roadsides led to a greater reduction of collisions between large mammals and cars than did shorter fence sections. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Behaviour change (5 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that 2.3-m-high fencing in good condition prevented most white-tailed deer accessing a highway. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Canada found that electric fences reduced moose access to highways. Three studies (two replicated), in the USA, found that higher fences (2.4–2.7 m) prevented more white-tailed deer from entering highways than did fences that were 2.2 m high, 1.2 m high with outriggers or 1.2–1.8 m high. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2567Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:55:48 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide artificial refuges/breeding sites Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing artificial refuges/breeding sites. Two studies were in each of the USA, Spain and Portugal and one was in each of Argentina and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled), in Spain and Portugal, found that artificial warrens increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in Argentina found that artificial refuges did not increase abundances of small vesper mice or Azara's grass mice. Survival (1 study): A study in USA found that artificial escape dens increased swift fox survival rates. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Four studies (two replicated), in Australia, Spain, Portugal and the USA, found that artificial refuges, warrens or nest structures were used by fat-tailed dunnarts, European rabbits, and Key Largo woodrats and Key Largo cotton mice. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2583Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:06:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove or control predators Ten studies evaluated the effects on non-controlled mammals of removing or controlling predators. Seven studies were in North America, one was in Finland, one in Portugal and one in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (10 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Three of six studies (including three controlled, one before-and-after and one replicated, paired sites study), in Finland Portugal, Mexico and the USA, found that removing predators increased abundances of pronghorns, moose and European rabbits and Iberian hares. One of these studies also found that mule deer abundance did not increase. The other three studies found that removing predators did not increase mountain hare, caribou or desert bighorn sheep abundance. Reproductive success (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies (one also controlled), in the USA, found that predator removal was associated with increased breeding productivity of white-tailed deer and less of a productivity decline in pronghorns. However, one of these studies also found that there was no change in breeding productivity of mule deer. Survival (5 studies): Two of five before-and-after studies (including two controlled studies and one replicated study), in the USA, Canada and the USA and Canada combined, found that controlling predators did not increase survival of caribou calves, or of calf or adult female caribou. Two studies found that moose calf survival and woodland caribou calf survival increased with predator control. The other study found mixed results with increases in white-tailed deer calf survival in some but not all years with predator control. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2613Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:19:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective harvesting instead of clearcutting Eight studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using selective harvesting instead of clearcutting. Four studies were in Canada, three were in the USA and one was a review of studies in North America. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Richness/diversity (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that harvesting trees selectively did not result in higher small mammal species richness compared to clearcutting. POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (7 studies): One of six replicated, controlled or replicated, site comparison studies in the USA and Canada found more small mammals in selectively harvested forest stands than in fully harvested, regenerating stands. Three studies found that selective harvesting did not increase small mammal abundance relative to clearcutting. The other two studies found mixed results with one of four small mammal species being more numerous in selectively harvested stands or in selectively harvested stands only in some years. A systematic review in North American forests found that partially harvested forests had more red-backed voles but not deer mice than did clearcut forests. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A site comparison study in the USA found that partially harvested forest was not used by snowshoe hares more than was largely clearcut forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2637Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Thin trees within forest Twelve studies evaluated the effects on mammals of thinning trees within forests. Six studies were in Canada and six were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Species richness (2 studies): A replicated, site comparison study the USA found that in thinned tree forest stands, there was similar mammal species richness compared to in unthinned stands. A replicated, controlled study in Canada found that thinning of regenerating lodgepole pine did not increase small mammal species richness 12–14 years later. POPULATION RESPONSE (8 STUDIES) Abundance (8 studies): Three of eight replicated, controlled and replicated, site comparison studies, in the USA and Canada, found that thinning trees within forests lead to higher numbers of small mammals. Two studies showed increases for some, but not all, small mammal species with a further study showing an increase for one of two squirrel species in response to at least some forest thinning treatments. The other two studies showed no increases in abundances of small mammals or northern flying squirrels between 12 and 14 years after thinning. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): Three of four controlled and comparison studies (three also replicated, one randomized) in Canada found that thinning trees within forests did not lead to greater use of areas by mule deer, moose or snowshoe hares. The other study found that a thinned area was used more by white-tailed deer than was unthinned forest. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2650Sat, 13 Jun 2020 18:09:47 +0100