Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Protect mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing) We found no studies that evaluated the effects of protecting mammals close to development areas (e.g. by fencing). '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%2F2324https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2324Wed, 20 May 2020 11:54:59 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents Three studies evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned wild young with wild foster parents. One study was in the USA, one was in South Africa and one was in Botswana. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two studies (one controlled) in the USA and Botswana, found that orphaned young black bears and African wild dogs had greater or equal survival compared to animals released alone or young of wild mammals with their biological parents. A study in South Africa found that an orphaned cheetah cub was not accepted by a family of cheetahs. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2343Fri, 22 May 2020 09:18:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prevent mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict Two studies evaluated the effects of preventing mammals accessing potential wildlife food sources or denning sites to reduce nuisance behaviour and human-wildlife conflict. One study was in the USA and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (2 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that electric shock devices prevented American black bears from accessing or damaging bird feeders. A before-and-after study in Switzerland found that electric fencing excluded stone martens from a building. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2346Fri, 22 May 2020 13:27:08 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Place orphaned or abandoned wild young with captive foster parents Two studies evaluated the effects of placing orphaned or abandoned wild young with captive foster parents. One study was in Canada and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): A controlled study in the USA found that stranded sea otter pups reared in captivity by foster mothers had higher post-release survival than did unfostered pups reared mostly alone, and similar survival to wild pups. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Behaviour change (2 studies): A study in Canada found that a captive white-tailed deer adopted a wild orphaned fawn. A controlled study in the USA found that stranded sea otter pups reared in captivity by foster mothers began foraging earlier than did unfostered pups reared mostly alone.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2364https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2364Tue, 26 May 2020 15:47:22 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant new or maintain existing hedgerows on farmland Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting new or maintaining existing hedgerows on farmland. Two studies were in the UK and one was in Switzerland. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): One of two replicated, site comparison studies, in the UK and Switzerland, found that retaining and enhancing hedgerows along with other field boundary features was associated with higher brown hare density in arable sites but not in grassland sites while the other study found that Irish hare numbers did not increase. A replicated, site comparison study in the UK found that establishing hedgerows alongside arable land increased small mammal abundance. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2383https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2383Wed, 27 May 2020 14:36:44 +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: Pay farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of paying farmers to cover the costs of conservation measures. The three studies were in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): A replicated, controlled study, in the UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment was associated with increased brown hare density in one of two regions studied. A replicated, site comparison study in Northern Ireland, UK found that agri-environment scheme enrolment did not increase numbers of Irish hares. A replicated, controlled study in the UK found that in field margins created through enrolment in an agri-environment scheme, small mammal abundance in spring increased, whereas it remained stable in conventionally managed margins. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2387Thu, 28 May 2020 08:38:14 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant crops to provide supplementary food for mammals Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of planting crops to provide supplementary food. Two studies were in the USA, one was in the UK and one was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Abundance (3 studies): Two replicated, controlled studies (including one before-and-after study), in the UK and Spain, found that crops grown to provide food for wildlife resulted in a higher abundance of small mammals in winter, but not in summer and increased European rabbit abundance. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) held higher overwintering mule deer abundance relative to barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that mule deer consumed triticale (a cross between wheat and rye) more than they did barley, annual ryegrass, winter wheat or rye. A replicated, randomized, controlled study in the USA found that supplementary food provided for game species was also consumed by lagomorphs and rodents. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2394https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2394Thu, 28 May 2020 10:07:10 +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: Place captive young with captive foster parents Two studies evaluated the effects of placing captive young mammals with captive foster parents. One study was in the USA and one was in Sweden and Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A replicated, controlled study in the USA found that most captive coyote pups placed with foster parents were successfully reared. A replicated study in Sweden and Norway found that captive grey wolf pups placed with foster parents had higher survival rates than pups that stayed with their biological mother. Condition (1 study): A replicated study in Sweden and Norway found that captive grey wolf pups placed with foster parents weighed less than pups that stayed with their biological mother. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2472https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2472Wed, 03 Jun 2020 17:02:34 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Preserve genetic material for use in future captive breeding programs Two studies evaluated the effects of preserving genetic material for use in future captive breeding programs. One study was in Mexico and one was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): A study in Mexico found that a series of non-traditional techniques, combined with natural mating, produced five aoudad embryos that could be cryogenically preserved. A study in USA, found that artificial insemination using preserved genetic material increased genetic diversity and lowered inbreeding in a captive black‐footed ferret population. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2475https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2475Thu, 04 Jun 2020 10:06:10 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Play predator calls to deter crop damage by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of playing predator calls to deter crop damage 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%2F2487https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2487Thu, 04 Jun 2020 13:12:20 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify culverts to make them more accessible to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying culverts to make them more accessible to mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that modified culverts (with a dry walkway, open-air central section and enlarged entrances) were used more by bobcats to make crossings than were unmodified culverts. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2522Mon, 08 Jun 2020 10:38:29 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify traps used in the control/eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammal One study evaluated the effects of modifying traps used in the control or eradication of non-native species to avoid injury of non-target mammals. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Condition (1 study): A before-and-after study in the USA found that modifying traps used for catching non-native mammals reduced moderate but not severe injuries among incidentally captured San Nicolas Island foxes. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2535Mon, 08 Jun 2020 16:30:52 +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: Protect habitat along elevational gradients We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of protecting habitat along elevational gradients. ‘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%2F2552https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2552Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:36:21 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Manage wetland water levels for mammal species One study evaluated the effects of managing wetland water levels for mammal species. This study was in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in the USA found that managing wetland water levels to be higher in winter increased the abundance of muskrat houses. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2574https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2574Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:49:37 +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: Modify vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers We found no studies that evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along roads to reduce collisions with mammals by enhancing visibility for drivers. ‘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%2F2599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2599Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:16:46 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals One study evaluated the effects of modifying the roadside environment to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness of road verges to mammals. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after, site comparison study in Canada found that draining roadside salt pools and filling them with rocks reduced the number and duration of moose visits. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2600Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:19:07 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Modify vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to mammals Two studies evaluated the effects of modifying vegetation along railways to reduce collisions by reducing attractiveness to wildlife. Both studies were in Norway. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): Two site comparison studies in Norway found that clearing vegetation from alongside railways reduced moose-train collisions. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2603Thu, 11 Jun 2020 15:34:27 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Prohibit or restrict hunting of particular sex/ breeding status/age animals Two studies evaluated the effects of prohibiting or restricting hunting of particular sex, breeding status or age animals. Both studies were in the USA. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Reproduction (2 studies): Two replicated, before-and-after studies, in the USA, found that limiting hunting of male deer did not increase the numbers of young deer/adult female. Population structure (1 study): A replicated, before-and-after study in the USA found that limiting hunting of older male elk resulted in an increased ratio of male:female elk. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES)Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2609Thu, 11 Jun 2020 16:29:44 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote sustainable alternative livelihoods We found no studies that evaluated the effects of promoting sustainable alternative livelihoods on 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%2F2623https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2623Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:50:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Promote mammal-related ecotourism We found no studies that evaluated the effects on mammals of promoting mammal-related ecotourism. ‘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%2F2624https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2624Fri, 12 Jun 2020 10:52:50 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Plant trees following clearfelling One study evaluated the effects on mammals of planting trees following clearfelling. This study was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, site comparison study in Canada found that forest stands subject to tree planting and herbicide treatment after logging were used more by American martens compared to naturally regenerating stands. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2631Fri, 12 Jun 2020 12:45:40 +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