Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Exclude or limit number of visitors to reserves or protected areas Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of excluding or limiting the number of visitors to reserves or protected areas. Three studies were in the USA, one was in Ecuador and one was in Thailand. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A site comparison study in Ecuador found that a road with restricted access had a higher population of medium-sized and large mammals compared to a road with unrestricted access. Survival (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that temporarily restricting visitor access resulted in fewer bears being killed to protect humans. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one a before-and-after study), in the USA and Thailand, found that restricting human access to protected areas resulted in increased use of these areas by grizzly bears and leopards. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2330Thu, 21 May 2020 10:43:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using collar-mounted devices to reduce predation by domestic animals. Three studies were in the UK, one was in Australia and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Survival (5 studies): Five replicated studies (including four randomized, controlled studies), in the UK, Australia and the USA, found that bells, a sonic device, and a neoprene flap (which inhibits pouncing) mounted on collars, and a brightly coloured and patterned collar all reduced the rate at which cats predated and returned home with mammals. In one of these studies, an effect was only found in autumn, and not in spring. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2332Thu, 21 May 2020 11:11:00 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Hand-rear orphaned or abandoned young in captivity Six studies evaluated the effects of hand-rearing orphaned mammals. Two were in the USA, one each was in Australia, South Africa and India and one was in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Reproductive success (1 study): One study in India found that three hand-reared orphaned or abandoned greater one-horned rhinoceroses gave birth in the wild. Survival (5 studies): Five studies (including one controlled and one replicated) in Australia, the USA, India and in six countries across North America, Europe and Asia, found that some hand-reared orphaned or abandoned ringtail possums, white-tailed deer, sea otters, bears and greater one-horned rhinoceroses survived for periods of time after release. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Behaviour change (1 study): A study in South Africa found that a hand-reared, orphaned serval established a home range upon release. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2358Tue, 26 May 2020 14:14:17 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Establish wild flower areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects of establishing wild flower areas on farmland on small mammals. Two studies were in Switzerland, one in the UK and one in Germany. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (4 studies): Three of four site comparison studies (including three replicated studies), in Switzerland, the UK and Germany, found that sown wildflower areas contained more wood mice, small mammals and common hamsters compared to grass and clover set-aside, grasslands, crop and uncultivated margins, agricultural areas and crop fields. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2359Tue, 26 May 2020 14:55:47 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide or retain set-aside areas on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing or retaining set-aside areas on farmland. Three studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Three replicated studies (including two site comparison studies), in the UK and Switzerland, found that set-aside did not enhance small mammal numbers relative to cropland or to uncultivated field margins and farm woodland, or brown hare numbers relative to numbers on farms without set-aside areas. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A before-and-after study in the UK found that use of uncut set-aside areas by wood mice increased after crop harvesting. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2377Wed, 27 May 2020 08:48:09 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees on farmland Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees on farmland. Two studies were in the UK, one was in Italy and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled, and one site comparison study), in the UK, found that farm woodland supported a higher small mammal abundance than on arable land or similar abundance compared to uncultivated field margins and set-aside. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A study in Italy found that tree stands were used more by European hares compared to the wider farmed landscape. A replicated study in Australia found that trees planted on farmland were used by koalas. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2386https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2386Wed, 27 May 2020 15:47:33 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing supplementary water to increase reproduction/survival. Two studies were in Australia and one each was in Oman, Portugal, Saudi Arabia and the USA and Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A replicated study in the USA and Mexico found that providing supplementary water was associated with increases in desert bighorn sheep population size. A study in Oman found that a released captive-bred Arabian oryx population initially provided with supplementary water and food increased over 14 years. Reproduction (2 studies): A study in Saudi Arabia found that released captive-bred Arabian gazelles initially provided with supplementary water and food after release into a fenced area started breeding in the first year. A study in Australia found that most female released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area reproduced in the first two years. Survival (2 studies): A controlled, before-and-after study in Australia found that most released captive-bred hare-wallabies provided with supplementary water, along with supplementary food and predator control, survived at least two months after release into a fenced peninsula. A study in Australia found that over half of released captive-reared black-footed rock-wallabies provided with supplementary water after release into a large predator-free fenced area survived for at least two years. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated study in Portugal found that artificial waterholes were used by European rabbits and stone martens. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2396Thu, 28 May 2020 10:44:07 +0100Collected 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: 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: 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: 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: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals in larger unrelated groups Five studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals in larger unrelated groups. Two studies were in South Africa, one was in Namibia and South Africa, one was in the USA and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Reproductive success (3 studies): A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that black-tailed prairie dogs translocated in larger groups had higher reproductive success than smaller groups. A study in South Africa found that Cape buffalo translocated to a fenced reserve as a larger group formed a single herd and reproduced, whilst a smaller group separated. A study in South Africa found that rehabilitated and captive-bred cheetahs released in groups (unrelated and family) and as individuals reproduced. Survival (4 studies): A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that black-tailed prairie dogs translocated in larger groups had higher initial daily survival rate than smaller groups. Two studies (one controlled) in Namibia and South Africa and Australia found that releasing translocated black rhinoceroses and burrowing bettongs in larger groups did not increase survival. A study in South Africa found that most adult rehabilitated and captive-bred cheetahs released in groups (unrelated and family) and as individuals survived at least one year. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A replicated, paired sites study in the USA found that black-tailed prairie dogs translocated in larger groups attracted more immigrants than smaller groups. A study in South Africa found that Cape buffalo translocated as a larger group formed a single herd and stayed in the fenced reserve, whilst a smaller group scattered and escaped the reserve. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2462https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2462Tue, 02 Jun 2020 12:01:41 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Release translocated/captive-bred mammals to islands without invasive predators Six studies evaluated the effects of releasing translocated or captive-bred mammals to islands without invasive predators. The six studies were in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): A study in Australia found that following release of captive-bred dibblers on to an island free of introduced predators, numbers increased. A replicated study in Australia found that following release of captive-bred and wild-born brush-tailed bettong onto islands free of foxes or cats, numbers increased on two of four islands. Reproductive success (3 studies): A study in Australia found that captive-bred proserpine rock-wallabies released on an island without introduced predators established a breeding population. Two studies in Australia found that following release on to islands without invasive predators, captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies and captive-bred dibblers. Survival (3 studies): A review of 28 translocation studies in Australia found that 67% of marsupial populations translocated to islands without predators survived more than five years, compared to 0% translocated to islands with predators and 20% translocated to the mainland. A study in Australia found that most captive-bred rufous hare-wallabies released on an island without non-native predators survived more than a year. A replicated study in Australia found that wild-born golden bandicoots descended from translocated populations released onto two predator-free islands persisted for 2–3 years. Condition (1 study): A replicated study in Australia found that wild-born golden bandicoots descended from translocated populations that had been released onto two predator-free islands, maintained genetic diversity relative to founder and source populations. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2464https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2464Tue, 02 Jun 2020 18:35:43 +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: Install tunnels/culverts/underpass under railways Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing tunnels, culverts or underpass under railways. Two studies were in Spain, one was in each of Australia, Canada and the Netherlands and one reviewed literature from a range of countries. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A review found that most studies recorded no evidence of predation in or around passages under railways or roads of mammals using those passages. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (5 studies): Five studies, in Spain, Australia, Canada and the Netherlands, found that tunnels, culverts and underpasses beneath railways were used by a range of mammals including rodents, rabbits and hares, carnivores, marsupials, deer and bears. One of these studies found that existing culverts were used more than were specifically designed wildlife tunnels. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2519Mon, 08 Jun 2020 09:27:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage vegetation using livestock grazing Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of managing vegetation using livestock grazing. Four studies were in the USA, one was in Norway and one was in Mexico. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that introduction of livestock grazing increased the abundance of Stephens’ kangaroo rat after two years. BEHAVIOUR (5 STUDIES) Use (4 studies): One of four studies (three replicated controlled studies and a before-and-after study), in the USA and Norway, found that sheep-grazed pasture was used by feeding reindeer more than was ungrazed pasture. One found mixed effects on Rocky Mountain elk use of grazed plots and another found no response of Rocky Mountain elk to spring cattle grazing. The forth study found cattle grazing to increase the proportion of rough fescue biomass utilized by elk in the first, but not second winter after grazing. Behaviour change (1 study): A replicated, paired sites study in Mexico found that in pastures grazed by cattle, Tehuantepec jackrabbits spent more time feeding than they did in pastures not grazed by cattle. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2545https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2545Tue, 09 Jun 2020 09:12:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Remove vegetation using herbicides Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of removing vegetation using herbicides. All six studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (4 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one replicated) in the USA found that applying herbicide did not increase numbers of translocated Utah prairie dogs or alter mule deer densities in areas of tree clearance. Survival (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that applying herbicide, along with mechanical disturbance and seeding, increased overwinter survival of mule deer fawns. Condition (1 study): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that applying herbicide did not reduce bot fly infestation rates of rodents and cottontail rabbits. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies in the USA found that applying herbicide increased forest use by female, but not male, white-tailed deer and increased pasture use by cottontail rabbits in some, but not all, sampling seasons. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2565Tue, 09 Jun 2020 14:27:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Restore or create forest Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of restoring or creating forest. Two studies were in the USA and one each were in Colombia, Italy and Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Richness/diversity (2 studies): Two site comparison studies (one replicated) in the USA and Colombia found that mammal species richness in restored forest was similar to that in established forest. POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): One of two replicated studies (one a site comparison) in Australia and Italy found that replanted or regrowing forest supported a higher abundance of hazel dormice than did coppiced forest. The other study found only low numbers of common brushtail possums or common ringtail possums by 7–30 years after planting. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Usage (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that restored riparian forest areas were visited more by carnivores than were remnant forests when restored areas were newly established, but not subsequently, whilst restored areas were not visited more frequently by black-tailed deer. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2570Tue, 09 Jun 2020 17:06:23 +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 drugs to treat parasites Seven studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using drugs to treat parasites. Three studies were in the USA, two were in Spain, one was in Germany and one was in Croatia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Survival (1 study): A randomized, replicated, controlled study the USA found that medical treatment of Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep against lungworm did not increase lamb survival. Condition (6 studies): Three of four before-and-after studies (one controlled), in Germany, the USA and Croatia, found that after administering drugs to mammals, parasite burdens were reduced in roe deer and in wild boar piglets and numbers of white-tailed deer infected were reduced. A third study found that levels of lungworm larvae in bighorn sheep faeces were reduced one month after drug treatment but not after three to seven months. One of these studies also found that the drug treatment resulted in increased body weight in roe deer fawns. A replicated, controlled, before-and-after study in Spain found that higher doses of ivermectin treated sarcoptic mange in Spanish ibex faster than lower doses, and treatment was more effective in animals with less severe infections. A replicated, before-and-after study in Spain found that after injecting Spanish ibex with ivermectin to treat sarcoptic mange a mange-free herd was established. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2587https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2587Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of a species Five studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of a mammal species. One study each was in Norway, the USA, South Africa, Poland and Zimbabwe. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (5 STUDIES) Abundance (2 studies): Two studies (including one before-and-after study), in the USA and Poland, found that prohibiting hunting led to population increases of tule elk and wolves. Survival (3 studies): A before-and-after study in Norway found that restricting or prohibiting hunting did not alter the number of brown bears killed. A study in Zimbabwe reported that banning the hunting, possession and trade of Temminck’s ground pangolins did not eliminate hunting of the species. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that increasing legal protection of leopards, along with reducing human-leopard conflict by promoting improved animal husbandry, was associated with increased survival. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2597Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:05:02 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence Six studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing signage to warn motorists about wildlife presence. Four studies were in the USA one was in Australia and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (6 STUDIES) Abundance (1 study): A before-and-after study in Australia found that when wildlife signs were installed along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, a small population of eastern quoll re-established in the area. Survival (6 studies): Three of five studies (including four controlled and three before-and-after studies), in the USA and Canada, found that warning signs did not reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. The other two studies found that warning signs did reduce collisions between vehicles and deer. A before-and-after study in Australia found that wildlife signs along with speed restrictions, rumble strips, reflective wildlife deterrents, wildlife escape ramps and an educational pamphlet, reduced collisions between vehicles and Tasmanian devils but not eastern quolls. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human behaviour change (2 studies): Two controlled studies (one also replicated, before-and-after), in the USA, found that signs warning of animals on the road reduced vehicles speeds. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2608Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:22:25 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Use chemical repellents along roads or railways Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of using chemical repellents along roads or railways. Two studies were in Canada and one each was in Germany, Norway and Denmark. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two studies (one before-and-after, one site comparison), in Germany and Norway, found that chemical-based repellents did not reduce collisions between ungulates and road vehicles or trains. BEHAVIOUR (4 STUDIES) Behaviour change (4 studies): Two of four studies (including three replicated, controlled studies), in Germany, Canada, and Denmark, found that chemical repellents, trialled for potential to deter animals from roads, did not deter ungulates. The other two studies found mixed results with repellents temporarily deterring some ungulate species in one study and one of three deterrents deterring caribou in the other. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2615Fri, 12 Jun 2020 08:24:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide/increase anti-poaching patrols Seven studies evaluated the effects of providing or increasing anti-poaching patrols on mammals. Two studies were in Thailand and one each was in Brazil, Iran, Lao People's Democratic Republic, South Africa and Tajikistan. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (7 STUDIES) Abundance (6 studies): Two studies, in Thailand and Iran, found more deer and small mammals and more urial sheep and Persian leopards close to ranger stations (from which anti-poaching patrols were carried out) than further from them. One of three before-and-after studies, in Brazil, Thailand and Lao People's Democratic Republic, found that ranger patrols increased mammal abundance. The other two studies found that patrols did not increase tiger abundance. A site comparison study in Tajikistan found more snow leopard, argali, and ibex where anti-poaching patrols were conducted. Survival (1 study): A study in South Africa found that anti-poaching patrols did not deter African rhinoceros poaching. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2618Fri, 12 Jun 2020 09:16:05 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Provide mammals with escape routes from canals Five studies evaluated the effects on mammals of providing mammals with escape routes from canals. Two studies were in Germany and one each was in the USA, the Netherlands and Argentina. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One of two studies (one before-and-after), in Germany and the USA, found that ramps and ladders reduced mule deer drownings whilst the other study found that ramps and shallow-water inlets did not reduce mammal drownings. BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): Three studies (one replicated) in Germany, the Netherlands and Argentina, found that ramps and other access or escape routes out of water were used by a range of medium-sized and large mammals species. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2638Fri, 12 Jun 2020 13:06:54 +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