Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals One study evaluated the effects of using signs or access restrictions to reduce disturbance to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, paired sites, site comparison study in the USA found that removing or closing roads increased use of those areas by black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2325Thu, 21 May 2020 08:38:49 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of using voluntary agreements with locals to reduce disturbance. ‘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%2F2339https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2339Thu, 21 May 2020 15:51:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use traditional breeds of livestock One study evaluated the effects of using traditional breeds of livestock on wild mammals. This study was carried out in four European countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in Europe found that European hares did not use areas grazed by traditional livestock breeds more than they used areas grazed by commercial breeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2411https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2411Fri, 29 May 2020 13:25:23 +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 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 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 watchmen to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using watchmen 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%2F2451https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2451Tue, 02 Jun 2020 10:57:38 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use tranquilizers to reduce stress during translocation One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using tranquilizers to reduce stress during translocation. This study was in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in France found that using tranquilizers to reduce stress during translocation did not increase post-release survival of European rabbits. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2465https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2465Wed, 03 Jun 2020 09:04:15 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict One study evaluated the effects of using ultrasonic noises to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Human-wildlife conflict (1 study): A replicated, controlled, paired sites study in Australia found that ultrasonic devices did not repel eastern gray kangaroos. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2479https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2479Thu, 04 Jun 2020 11:15:07 +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 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 vaccination programme Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using vaccination programmes. Three studies were in the UK and one study was in each of Belgium, Spain, Poland and Ethiopia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Poland found that following an anti-rabies vaccination programme, red fox numbers increased. Condition (6 studies): Five studies (including three replicated, three controlled and two before-and-after studies) in Belgium, Spain and the UK found that following vaccination, rabies was less frequent in red foxes, numbers of Eurasian badgers infected with tuberculosis was reduced and European rabbits developed immunity to myxomatosis and rabbit haemorrhagic disease. One of the studies also found that vaccination reduced the speed and extent of infection in infected Eurasian badgers. A study in Ethiopia found that following vaccination of Ethiopian wolves, a rabies outbreak halted. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2582Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:01:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use selective trapping methods in hunting activities We found no studies that evaluated the effects on non-target mammals of using selective trapping methods in hunting activities. ‘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%2F2611https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2611Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:44:54 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts Two studies evaluated the effects on mammal species of using wildlife refuges to reduce hunting impacts. One study was in Canada and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated site comparison studies in Canada and Mexico found more moose in areas with limited hunting than in more heavily hunted areas. The other study found mixed results with only one of five species being more numerous in a non-hunted refuge. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2612Thu, 11 Jun 2020 17:07:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use wildlife decoy to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using wildlife decoys to reduce vehicle collisions with mammals. ‘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%2F2620https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2620Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:32:37 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use tree tubes/small fences/cages to protect individual trees We found no studies that evaluated the effects of using tree tubes, small fences or cages to protect individual trees from mammals. ‘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%2F2630https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2630Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:42:53 +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: Use thinning of forest instead of clearcutting One study evaluated the effects on mammals of using thinning of forest instead of clearcutting. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that thinned forest areas were used more by desert cottontails than were fully cleared or uncleared areas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2643Fri, 12 Jun 2020 15:57:07 +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